Apple reframes the green debate, backs it up with new data

Apple has released a comprehensive environmental evaluation of its products …

Greenpeace has harped on electronics companies—Apple in particular—to "clean up" their act by publishing its annual Guide to Greener Electronics. Apple, however, has made great strides to improve the environmental impact of its products and operations over the last decade. This is despite constantly getting low ratings on "green" issues based mostly on the way Apple reports information about greenhouse gas emissions or the lack of published goals for certain environmental initiatives. The company has long argued that actions speak much louder than words, though, and it has now published data that firmly supports this contention.

To give an idea of how Apple seems to be unable to earn any cred for its green efforts, consider the most recent rankings by Greenpeace. All of Apple's computers earn an EPEAT gold rating, meet or exceed all Energy Star requirements, have phased out nearly all use of PVC, BFRs, and have made efforts to eliminate mercury, arsenic, and other harmful chemicals from its entire product line. That didn't stop the company from earning 4.7 points on a 10 point scale, mainly because the company didn't report certain details in the format that Greenpeace wanted, didn't give specific information about renewable energy use, and didn't state specific goals about the reduction of GHG emissions. Despite Greenpeace lauding the company's efforts to make its products more green, Apple actually fell back one place among the companies that Greenpeace tracks, while other manufacturers that offer less "green" products but make certain promises to make changes in the future earn higher rankings.

Others have put Apple way behind other companies as well. For instance, Newsweek recently published a ranking of the "Greenest Big Companies In America." It put Apple in 133rd place, well behind the Marathon Oil at 100, while HP and Dell were ranked number one and two respectively. The disparity seems to defy all logic and common sense.

This is why Apple has long sought to reframe the issue as one of concrete action versus published promises—which can be, and are, easily broken. Apple's latest data shows that the efforts Apple has made to improve its products, making them more environmentally friendly and more energy efficient, are actually paying off more than initiatives to reduce greenhouse emissions at its offices, for instance. "A lot of companies publish how green their building is, but it doesn't matter if you're shipping millions of power-hungry products with toxic chemicals in them," CEO Steve Jobs told BusinessWeekin an interview. "It's like asking a cigarette company how green their office is."

A comparison of Apple's overall CO2 emissions by source. Product use over its projected lifetime accounts for the vast majority of those emissions.

Apple has now made a comprehensive, detailed analysis of carbon emissions for the entire life cycle of each of its products. While information is available for each individual product in the comprehensive "Environmental Reports," an aggregate of the data shows that the vast majority of carbon emissions come from manufacture and use of its products. Manufacturing, including everything from the extractions of raw materials up to final product assembly, accounts for 38 percent of Apple's carbon emissions, while use of its products over a standard lifetime—4 years for a Mac or 3 years for an iPod or iPhone—accounts for a whopping 53 percent of the carbon emissions. Transportation, maintaining it facilities, and recycling account for just 9 percent, with facilities alone responsible for just 3 percent of the company's 10.2 million metric tons of yearly carbon emissions.

That doesn't mean Apple isn't making improvements in facilities energy use. By the end of this year, the company will run its Cork, Ireland, and Elk Grove, California operations completely on renewable energy sources. Its Austin, TX offices use renewable energy as well. The company also provides incentives to use public transportation instead of driving in to work, including running biodeisel-fuled busses that transport as many as 600 employees per day.

What's more, Apple continues to "green" its business in several other areas. The company offers recycling in 95 percent of the countries it does business in, achieving a 42 percent recycling rate and aiming for an industry-leading 50 percent rate by 2010. Apple also continues to reduce the energy consumption of its products, reduce the materials used to make them, and reduce the amount of packaging they require. And the company continues to reduce the amount of toxic substances used in its products. "Not only is every Mac, iPod, and iPhone free of PVC and BFRs, we are also qualifying thousands of components to be free of elemental bromine and chlorine, putting us years ahead of anyone in the industry," reads Apple's website. "In addition, all MacBook Pro models feature displays with mercury-free backlighting and arsenic-free glass." The company also requires its manufacturing partners to maintain "environmentally responsible manufacturing processes."

Jobs admitted to BusinessWeek that criticism from Greenpeace and other groups encouraged Apple to improve its environmental initiatives, but says he won't start publishing certain specific, long-term goals just to satisfy those critics. Instead, Apple will continue to publish comprehensive data that shows the efforts and improvements Apple is making. Paul Dickinson, president of the Carbon Disclosure Project, applauded Apple's effort to make a more sensible, comprehensive measurement of its environmental impact. "Its approach is legitimate, and to be encouraged," he said. It may not gain the company any points with Greenpeace, but it sure seems like Apple is ahead of its competition in making real change when it comes to its impact on the environment.

80 Reader Comments

I don't think Apple gets a fair shake in these rankings and I'm glad to see Steve thumbing his nose at them and actually making things better.

Also, green is different than no co2 emissions. Greenhouse gases are the biggest problem facing civilization and you can nearly zero those out by using a factory that gets electricity from a nuclear plant and living in an area where the grid is supplied by nuclear power. These are very easy things to do, we just need many more nuclear plants. Product improvement while minimizing hazardous materials and packaging (green activities) are much more challenging for Apple or any company.

I understand how an oil company can be green even though its product is primarily intended for combustion. However, including it in any environmental ranking is absurd.

I'm just happy to see someone (anyone!) tell Greenpeace to get stuffed. Greenpeace is just another PETA - all noise, all marketing, no sense. They've never had a very strong grasp on science, and as they need to scream louder and louder for attention, actually researching what they're going on about continually takes a back seat.

If Apple (or anyone, for that matter) takes the public eye away from Greenpeace hysteria and focuses it on real data instead, more power to them.

Originally posted by river-wind:RE: renewable energy in the manufacturing plants.

Is this actual renewable energy, or some sort of carbon-credit trading to make the numbers look like 100% renewable energy?

I don't believe they are currently using renewable energy in manufacturing, since that is up to its manufacturing partners and suppliers. Cork, Elk Grove, and Austin are mostly customer service, sales, and administrative centers. May also be some R&D, but I don't know that for sure; I do know that the bulk of that is done in Cupertino. Apple says that they purchase renewable energy for these facilities; it doesn't mention carbon offset credits or anything like that.

Originally posted by knat_2:I am curious what greenpeace's comment to this would be. Ars, have you asked for comments?

I am hoping to hear back from them, but the last time I spoke with someone involved in making the reports (in July), the comments boiled down to "Apple isn't telling us exactly what we want to hear. Until they do, their score won't increase." If you look at the detailed report from Greenpeace, it'll give Apple 1 point for doing something good, another if it publishes information in a specific format, and another if it publicly publishes a specific timeline to change certain things like GHG reductions or elimination of certain chemicals.

The scoring system essentially rewards words over actions, and I have to agree with Apple when they say that actions are more important than words. Also, I agree that focusing on the products they make and the life cycle matters more than what kind of light bulbs are used in its offices. To give a counter example, Dell promised to eliminate PVC and BFRs from its products by the end of 2009. Then it reneged on the promise, and hasn't offered any new timeline. Meanwhile, Apple has already eliminated then from its entire product line, and is already removing mercury from CFLs and arsenic-containing glass from is products.

Computers aren't going to be made out of organic cotton and free-range unicorn tears anytime soon, but Apple's progress over the last decade is demonstrably more impressive than what I've seen from other companies in the CE space.

What really ticks me off and makes the Greenpeace rating a joke is how they actually gave Dell higher marks then Apple simply because Dell SAID they were going to do something and yet NEVER did. And yet Apple DID do something and yet gets lower marks. What a joke.

If you happen to be standing next to Rep at a Starbucks in line for coffee and you fart - they flag down a polic officer and try to have tyou cited for pollution violations.

Greenpeace IS NOT a good barometer for environmental impact. They have a political agenda just like every other interest group out there.

I think some one should flip the table - look underneath and scrutinize Greenpaece - globally - the entire operation - anyone or any group thatn claims actions in the name of Greenpeace -- absed on their own criteria and see just where the hell they rank on their own damned chart.

It's interesting how Newsweek doesn't show up on their own Rankings. (guess they're not that big and are exempt - but they should publish their own impact for comparison)

Back to my point on Greenpeace - I know they aren't a tech company - but here's their criteria Specs (i wonder how they would stack up on a global scale) http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/

Criteria on energyThe five new energy criteria address key expectations that Greenpeace has of responsiblecompanies that are serious about tackling climate change. They are:(1) Support for global mandatory reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG)emissions;(2) Disclosure of the company’s own GHG emissions plus emissionsfrom two stages of the supply chain;(3) Commitment to reduce the company’s own GHG emissions withtimelines;(4) Amount of renewable energy used(5) Energy efficiency of new models (companies score double on thiscriterion)

Originally posted by fferitt25:Back to my point on Greenpeace - I know they aren't a tech company - but here's their criteria Specs (i wonder how they would stack up on a global scale) http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/

Criteria on energyThe five new energy criteria address key expectations that Greenpeace has of responsiblecompanies that are serious about tackling climate change. They are:(3) Commitment to reduce the company’s own GHG emissions withtimelines;

I like how there's no requirement for how much to reduce, nor any consideration for how much the company already emits. Just reduce, damnit!

Given that lots of Apple enthusiasts cite the environment as a reason to use Macs, it's surprising to see that Greenpeace ranks Apple lower than Dell and HP. Either Greenpeace's scores mean nothing, or all the Apple environmental lovers are full of crap.

I've never seen anyone brandishing a Dell and rambling about how they bought it for the enviroment.

I don;t mind the 1 point for hitting a greenpeace milestone, 1 point for prublishing data (in a common format, not necessarily one greenpeace demands in a specific format so long as the data is ther), and 1 point for making a promise; but they need to add one more detail: -1 to -3 points for failure to meet a published promise (based on the number of milestones the promise was missed by).

For example (warning: hypothetcal numbers used!): Dell says "We'll remove all arsenic containing glass for the product line by Q2 2010." Come Q2 2010, only 60% of the product line is arsenic free, and they were at 40% arsenic free when they made the statement, meaning they had 60% to go, and only got 1/3rd of the way there in their goal. Greenpeace would give them 1 point for the publication, 1 for reducing arsenic use by at least a milestone mark (20% reduction), and 1 point for initially making the goal, but loose 2 points for publishing a goal they did not meet, for a net of 1 positive point. Additionally, Dell in a previous year made a statement to reduce manufacturing carbon emissions by 10% and met that goal, but this time they a) made no additional such statement, so they did not earn a point, and b) actually slipped 5% increasing output, greenpeace should give them -2 points for rolling back a previous goal, with no points earned for documentation of a new goal or milestone reached.

That's a fair system. It won't encourage radical improvement, but it will encourage improvement more than today's "document but it's OK to do nothing anyway" approach, and it also punishes companies that move backwards in goals documented or not. Companies that publish reasonable goals and produce incremental improvement year over year (with minimum milestones of 10-20% improvement depending on the thing) will earn high scores. Also, any company currently exceeding the gold standard metrics should simply have to document it, and not publish additional goals or reach higher milestones (once you hit 100% arsenic free, so long as you stay there, you shouls allways get 3 points), and further receive 1 bonus point for reaching that higher standard.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by countcracula:Either Greenpeace's scores mean nothing, or all the Apple environmental lovers are full of crap.QUOTE]Eating all that fiber will make you a little bulked up, you know, but not necessarily in a bad way.

Originally posted by countcracula:Given that lots of Apple enthusiasts cite the environment as a reason to use Macs, it's surprising to see that Greenpeace ranks Apple lower than Dell and HP. Either Greenpeace's scores mean nothing, or all the Apple environmental lovers are full of crap.

I've never seen anyone brandishing a Dell and rambling about how they bought it for the enviroment.

Actually, it's one of the reasons I bought a Dell, and I do tell others about it.

Originally posted by countcracula:Given that lots of Apple enthusiasts cite the environment as a reason to use Macs, it's surprising to see that Greenpeace ranks Apple lower than Dell and HP. Either Greenpeace's scores mean nothing, or all the Apple environmental lovers are full of crap.

I've never seen anyone brandishing a Dell and rambling about how they bought it for the enviroment.

Actually, it's one of the reasons I bought a Dell, and I do tell others about it.

That you believed Greenpeace? Or that your Dell actually hurts the environment less than other PCs?

Frankly, I think Greenpeace is becoming increasing irrelevant in today's world. When we see their "style" reflected in so many other (admittedl more) violent ways, in my view they are nothing more than environmental terrorists.

And their "my way or no way" attitude is supremely off-putting. They don't have a monoply on "environmentally sound."

Maybe they need to start working from a less "in your face" perspective. I hear it has worked quite well for the once-ridiculed Albert Gore.

Originally posted by trism:This is all well and good, but 53% is hardly a "vast" majority. It's barely a majority at all.

"While information is available for each individual product in the comprehensive "Environmental Reports," an aggregate of the data shows that the vast majority of carbon emissions come from manufacture and use of its products." (emphasis added)

Did anyone look at the Greenpeace rankings? Greenpeace rank Dell, HP, Lenovo all BELOW Apple. The comments for Dell's ranking specifically states that they were penalised for backtracking on their promises. So Greenpeace's rankings reward companies for having a public policy, and penalise them when they renege on it. What is unfair about that?

Apple is quite possibly the most marketing/PR focused technology company on the planet. For Jobs to attempt to reframe the issue as actions over words is the height of irony.

How can Apple make any truly quantifiable claim about the emissions of manufacturing vs the emissions of use? Do they have data on the type of power grids their products are attached to? Do they have data about how their customers manage their batteries/recharge cycle? This stat just smacks of a corporation attempting to externalise their responsibility.

As far as I know, it is Greenpeace policy to not accept donations from corporate entities. I have no idea how well that policy is adhered to, but it's hard to be LESS independent than a report produced by Apple themselves?!

Originally posted by ucla74:Frankly, I think Greenpeace is becoming increasing irrelevant in today's world.

The fact that Apple has come out with information on their environmental performance is proof that Greenpeace's tactic is working - they have people thinking and talking about how electronics manufacturing and use affects the environment.

quote:

When we see their "style" reflected in so many other (admittedl more) violent ways, in my view they are nothing more than environmental terrorists.

Originally posted by ucla74:Frankly, I think Greenpeace is becoming increasing irrelevant in today's world.

The fact that Apple has come out with information on their environmental performance is proof that Greenpeace's tactic is working - they have people thinking and talking about how electronics manufacturing and use affects the environment.

Uh, no. What is really happening is that Apple is using Greenpeace as a PR vehicle. The environment is secondary because really they need to meet many of these standards due to government standards, anyway, or they do this in order to reduce costs (and increase profits).

Without Greenpeace? Yeah, Apple would already be doing 95% of this in the first place. PR is PR.

Originally posted by scoobygang:How can Apple make any truly quantifiable claim about the emissions of manufacturing vs the emissions of use? Do they have data on the type of power grids their products are attached to? Do they have data about how their customers manage their batteries/recharge cycle? This stat just smacks of a corporation attempting to externalise their responsibility.

They may not have exact numbers, but I bet you could derive average use statistics. Using such numbers would get you in the ballpark. I think it is perfectly reasonable to attempt to quantify to some extent the foot print of a companies products. I believe the supply chain is already considered to some degree. Why include manufacturing when the manufacturing is done by a 3rd party? Yes, Apply has some control over who they choose to manufacture their products, but I would argue they have more control over the design and components of their own products. How many companies are actually realistic candidates for producing Apple's products at the scale they require.

If a car company uses 100% green power for its buildings but puts no emission controls on their car then that should be reflected. Should such a company be rated higher than car company that only uses 50% green power for its buildings but produces zero emissions vehicles? Same with fuel refiners. By changing the additives in the fuels refiners can change the emissions of those fuels to some degree. Not all gas or diesel fuel burns equal "clean".